Surely you mean the Aborigines with Apartheid???  Are you... like... an each way bet person?  In Nu Zulland you can be wrong if you are a Maori minority trying to take over all.... in South Africa you can be wrong if you are a White minority trying to take over all.... but in Australia you can be a Sacred Species minority who has the right to take over all???

What's the difference?

From what I've read - having NZ including Maori rellies, which prompted me to look at this instantly - this government simply wanted to realign the conditions of the Treaty of Waitangi and remove the things that have been snuck in that are undermining it, and also cut back on such race-specific things as a Do Not Smoke campaign directed at Maori.

Apparently like our Aborigines here, as a group they drink and smoke and drug too much and are over-represented in crime figures - never would have guessed... and over the years various amendments or unrelated things have been negotiated - according to one NZ chap much of it on the basis of an English language 'copy' of the Treaty of Waitangi being presented to and accepted by NZ Parliament - and that being full of false 'rights' alleged to have been granted to Maori chiefs, NONE of which appear on the original - and the trouble that has ensued since over this RAPE of the Treaty.

Now that government has meekly surrendered to the baying crowd threatening violence unless they are given their way - opening the gates to further threats, intimidation, violence in reality, and a sense of Entitlement™ to pursue their 'rights' in many Maori ... and to use threats of civil war, intimidation, and violent activism to get what they want regardless of sense, treaties, and common decency.

Of course, in the minds of many such - this - just like here - is coupled with a sense of grievance and a desire for revenge.... which can and will lead anywhere.....

I see nothing good coming from this meek surrender by a government to threats of aggression.

Yeah - they're a weak breed, the Maori....

Where's dividie?  He can deny that much of that 'disability' is personal sovereignty based on poor 'learned behaviour' and we all reject the idea that poverty can contribute to crime  .. yardle, yardle....

Where he hiding, dat boy?  Does a mothra on us - sails in for a broadside or two and gets out of Dodge before Righteousness falls upon him .....

Quote:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous

Quote:


By that definition, the Maori are indigenous to NZ, but plenty of other people regarded as indigenous are not. The Maori might be the only people who fit the definition with certainty.

Also, I'm pretty sure Aotearoa does not translate to "we paddled our canoe around it". But they did figure out that NZ is two Islands.

The fact is that modern Maoris' ancestors were Polynesian warrior colonisers who murdered and cannibalised their way around the South Pacific until they encountered the lands now known as New Zealand. They maintained their murdering and cannibalising traditions among each other in NZ but dropped the Pacifika canoe travel bit.

They were similar in many respects to the Vikings of Europe without the cannibalism.

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 1:04pm:


The first Māori dictionary, published in 1844, had no entry for Aotearoa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aotearoa#:~:text=8%20External%20links-,Origin,and%
20roa%20('long').

The notion that the two main islands of NZ, and those surrounding them, should have a singular identity was introduced to the Maori peoples by European explorers who had actually circumnavigated the islands and had arbitrarily suggested a singular name - not unlike New Holland/Australia.

The notion of the islands' singular national identity is not part of any Maori tradition.